Drug Czar and Obama Make Strong Statement Against Legalizing Marijuana

Newsweek has a copy of the March, 2010 draft of the much delayed National Drug Control Strategy (available here.) It makes a strong statement against legalizing marijuana.

Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them. That is why this Administration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug. Legalizing drugs would increase accessibility and encourage promotion and acceptance of use. Diagnostic, laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological studies clearly indicate that marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects , and legalization would only exacerbate these problems. (my emphasis.)


The plan touts its increased funding for drug prevention and treatment, but there's a lot of troubling things in the enforcement section, aside from the predictable enhance the border and spend more money in Africa projects.

Like supporting a zero tolerance proposal for DUID (driving under the influence of drugs):

Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver’s body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work with states to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.(emphasis supplied.)

Indoor marijuana grows will face increased busts:

The use of indoor grow operations and other technological advances have enabled traffickers to increase the potency of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis plants. In 2008, DEA and partner agencies seized in excess of 4,100 indoor grow operations.... DEA, in coordination with state, and local agencies, must aggressively deploy resources as efficiently as possible in close partnership with state agencies to eradicate the marijuana and dismantle organizations that produce it.

Watch out for your cash, increased emphasis will be placed on seizing it. The plan calls for treating bulk cash the same as drugs. And, they will ramp up prosecutions of those found with cash, to convert them into snitches and help them with controlled buys of drugs.

Drug War Rant weighs in here.

< Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | Abu Ghraib: Prison Guard From Hell Gets Appeal Heard Today >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How about saying that no one who ever (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by observed on Mon May 03, 2010 at 05:49:52 AM EST
    used illegal drugs, or has made a public statement admitting such use, be eligible for any federal office, with a promise that elected officials in the White House will voluntarily comply.

    That's good comedy... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 07:59:57 AM EST
    Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them

    Who came up with that gem, Conan's writers?  The drugs I like couldn't be more available...well, except hashish.  Maybe thats the buzz they really have it out for:)

    And with out of work folks googling "marijuana growing" faster than you can smoke a roach, its only gonna get more available.

    The only thing I see prohibition lessening is respect for the law...and individual liberty of course.  How do these government cats keep a straight face I wonder...they can't be this stupid, so they must be dishonest.

    No surprise (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by kenosharick on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:55:58 AM EST
    out of this moderate republican administration.

    Cognitive impairment? Let's find out if (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ben Masel on Mon May 03, 2010 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    they really believe this.

    I hereby challenge Kerlikowski, or his boss, to a chess match for serious money, say $20,000, cash on the table. After 41 years of, by anyone's standard, heave use, why I MUST have suffered plenty of "cognitive impairment."

    (I've previously offered 2 of Kerlikowski's predecessors (Robert S. Dupont and William "High Stakes" Bennett, the same wager after their 'cognitive impairment remarks, both chickened out.)

    Perhaps you have developed a tolerance? (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon May 03, 2010 at 06:38:37 PM EST
    Actually, a reverse tolerance (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Ben Masel on Mon May 03, 2010 at 07:01:03 PM EST
    Lately, I'm lighting up almost as often as ever, but consuming less in a typical session, as the 1st hit does what used to take 3.

    Perhaps You Have Cultivated Ignorance? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:10:30 AM EST
    And that is where your intolerance has come from.

    See link @ definition 4(a)(1): (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:10:53 AM EST
    See Link And Definition Of (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    Oh. A pun. I thought it was an ad hom. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    A Drug Warrior, or prosecutor, who has been at it for more than a week, should know some basic facts about the drugs that they are trying to eliminate and the users that they are trying to incarcerate.

    Marijuana is neither addictive nor does a regular user develop a "tolerance" to the drug.

    So either you have cultivated your ignorance, or your intolerance has occluded your ability to understand the thing you appear to be  so against.


    Despite your suppositions, I don't have an (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:30:43 PM EST
    opinion re whether cultivation/  possession/sale/distribution of MJ should currently be criminalized/legal/taxed/etc.  Do not think it is a good idea to make it readily available to minors--either legally or illegally.  Feds. have law in place, however it was never my responsibility or jurisdiction to prosecute anyone for violation of federal law.

    OK (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:40:03 PM EST
    Well now you know that it is not a drug that develops a tolerance.

    Abstract knowledge often amounts to memorizing talking points.


    Actually I do not know that. And you have (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:43:46 PM EST
    not provided a link.  

    Oh (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:21:37 PM EST
    Funny. Ben may need less strength (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:48:46 PM EST
    of MJ to achieve same buss as he ages.  Or, as I have read in numerous places, current MJ is much stronger than previous MJ.  

    Read What you Will (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:36:49 PM EST
    Ben's and my knowledge is empirical. Yours is apparently  abstract.

    "Much stronger" (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ben Masel on Wed May 05, 2010 at 09:24:01 AM EST
    The best weed on the market in the late '60s and '70s was a potent as anything available today, tho it was a smaller fraction of what was then on the market.

    What changed is the sampling process of what became available for testing by government techs.

    back then, most arrests, and thus samples  in the evidence lockers, came from narcs hanging in bars, buying retail. only the worst of what was around would get sold to strangers in bars, as the dealers' closer friends would buy up all the highgrade for themselves.

    Come the mid-80s, busts off domestic cultivators, with highgrade, became more common.


    Yes (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Wed May 05, 2010 at 09:54:57 AM EST
    Can't speak about the 60's, except for maybe '69, but I can attest to the fact that in the 70 there was great variety of top grade weed. Now, even though there is still top grade weed available, I lament that the variety is quite limited.

    Oh well, that is progress for you..  


    Thanks for the information. (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    I was once stopped while driving stoned, and the police tested me for reflex, and cognitive impairment. I was able to quickly recite the alphabet backwards, walk along a straight line as if it was a tightrope both forwards and backwards, touch my nose with my eyes closed, both hands, and whatever else they through at me.

    The case was thrown out because the evidence (a roach) mysteriously disappeared... lol

    Oh, and the stop happened in weedsport... lol


    Change you can believe in? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Mon May 03, 2010 at 03:38:31 AM EST
    Did I get that right?

    aggressively deploy (none / 0) (#3)
    by 1980Ford on Mon May 03, 2010 at 05:01:02 AM EST
    Yep, still a drug WAR on its citizens.

    I particularly dislike the (none / 0) (#5)
    by observed on Mon May 03, 2010 at 06:46:09 AM EST
    "..or any other illicit drug. Legalizing drugs ..." construction.
    Chemicals are not dangerous because they are illegal, and not all illegal drugs are equally dangerous, if they are dangerous at all.

    I also have a problem with people who want to "legalize drugs", because it's obvious to me that drugs should be handled on a case by case basis. Those people who want to "legalize all drugs" are essentially in the same camp  as people who want to abolish the FDA, one of whose purposes is to distinguish between those substances which are dangerous and those which are not.

    The idea proposed in the quotes that legalizing marijuana use will lead to more ----oh really??
    What about cigarette smoking?
    If marijuana use is actually dangerous, then educating people about  the effects, and putting a stiff tax on it, will discourage use.

    I support legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.  Other drugs, such as meth or pcp---no way. Heroin? I'm sure having doctors prescribe it for addicts would be better than the current system.

    It's an inalienable rights thang ob... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:10:52 AM EST
    the state simply has no right to deny the right of an individual to imbibe anything that individual sees fit.  The creator gave us that right when he/she/it gave us mouths and opposable thumbs.

    Don't get me wrong, I've tried pcp and don't think anyone should ever do any pcp...it's f*ckin' nasty.  And I wouldn't touch meth with a ten-foot pole.  But that is a question of taste, if somebody else likes dust or meth they have the inalienable right to use it...anything less is violation of an individual's inalienable rights.  And if you mug an old lady on meth or dust...no addiction-based excuses, you get prosecuted the same as a sober violent criminal.


    blah blah blah (none / 0) (#15)
    by observed on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:22:15 AM EST
    In other words, you want to abolish the FDA.
    We as a country had that argument decades ago.

    Not really... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:29:11 AM EST
    I'd keep the FDA around to ensure whats on the label is in the product, and to apply warnings...I wanna reinstate personal freedom.

    And I'm really sorry to hear... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    the rights of us all to live our lives as we see fit is a "blah, blah, blah" to you...thats just sad man.

    I'm sad you that you don't (none / 0) (#21)
    by observed on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    look at your own ideas with a critical eye.

    What makes you think that?... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 12:04:59 PM EST
    I question my ideas and beliefs all the time, and twice on Sunday...I just believe very strongly that the state has no right to prohibit what I wanna put in my body...no right at all.  Thats non-negotiable...inalienable.

    The FDA has no purpose if harmful (none / 0) (#20)
    by observed on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:50:29 AM EST
    substances are not prohibited. Meth is a harmful substance with no legitimate medical purpose.
    There's another point which I'm surprised is never  mentioned when blanket legalization of drugs is mentioned, which is the question of how this could be  restricted only to "recreational" drugs. There is no medical definition of recreational drug that I'm aware of.
    If you "legalize drugs" across the board, it has to follow that people can self-medicate for ANYTHING, IMO.

    I'm cool with... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    the right for people to decide for themselves what they wanna imbibe...why the hell not?  And the FDA would still have a very important purpose if all drugs were legalized...insuring accurate warning labels and accurate ingredients so people can make at least semi-informed decisions, if they can't be bothered to be fully informed.  As well as testing new drugs to accurately list side-effects.

    Not every nation requires a permission slip before purchasing certain drugs ya know...I was just down in Mexico for example, where you can walk in a pharmacy and get what you want/need without a permission slip...how civilized and liberty-friendly.  


    And potential dangerous (none / 0) (#24)
    by nyjets on Mon May 03, 2010 at 01:07:39 PM EST
    While at one level you are not wrong some drugs should require a presecription before taking.
    Some drugs are just to dangerous to be taken without a doctor care.
    Now, if you want to say that marijuana is as safe as asprin and does not require a prescrption, okay.
    But some drugs have to be regulated, they are just too dangerous and I mean, you take it incorrectly you are dead, dangerous. Or if you take the drug, you may put others at risk.

    With great freedom... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    comes great personal responsibility.

    I don't think it is a good idea to ever take some drugs (like pcp), nor is it a good idea to take some drugs without consulting your physician early and often...but I wasn't talking about what is a good idea or what is wise behavior...I was talking about inalienable rights, and I firmly believe you have the inalienable right to imbibe anything and everything you want...even if your own stupidity kills you.


    You are a case study in what is (none / 0) (#44)
    by observed on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    wrong with the Libertarian "philosophy".
    I don't know exactly what liberty is, but I'm sure it does not consist solely and entirely of being able to do whatever you want, assuming your behavior does not harm others. Aside from freedom from paying taxes, I have detected no other element of your Libertarian credo.

    In the case of practicing medicine and using pharmaceutical drugs, the issue is that no layman has enough information to make safe choices about self-medication. Heck, many doctors struggle with the problem of not poisoning a patient.

    However, it is good to see that you favor at least half of the step of abolishing the FDA.
    Logically, you should go all the way.
    If personal responsibility is good enough for deciding which drugs to use, even if an uninformed decision is fatal, then personal responsibility is enough to cover the act of purchasing. There's no need for government regulation.


    Speak for yourself... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:27:58 PM EST
    this layman knows he can take a Percocet for a toothache without seeing a dentist for permission.

    And I would say personal liberty is exactly that...doing whatever the hell you want as long as you don't victimize anybody else in the process...the line of "victimizing" others can get a little blurry, though I don't see how me self-medicating with that Percocet is any concern of yours or the state....it's my kidneys, my body.

    It baffles me that anyone would willingly surrender the right to put whatever they want in their body...thats as basic as basic human rights get.  Are you that afraid of yourself? I don't get it.


    All I'm saying is that the issue (none / 0) (#31)
    by observed on Mon May 03, 2010 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    of legalizing drugs should be handled on a case by case basis. First of all, I have no idea what "legalizing drugs" even means, for the reasons I gave above, among other things.
    Second, it's a fundamental contradiction to say that the FDA could fulfill its purpose by ensuring that certain extremely dangerous drugs are pure.
    Finally, no one ever answers my point about drug legalization and its relation to pharmaceuticals.
    It's naive to think that if "drugs" were legalized, there wouldn't be unscrupulous people who would offer medical drugs at discount rates to patients with serious illnesses.  
    As I alluded to before, the very reason we have an FDA can be traced to the history of quackery in the US.

    I already said I favor medicalization of heroin addiction, which is about as liberal a position as you can find in this country. I'm far from hard-ass on the war on drugs. I'm ALMOST in favor of legalizing meth, simply because the drug is so awful I think that demand might actually go down if it didn't have the allure of being forbidden.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:08:27 AM EST
    Methamphetamine is a prescription drug.

    Thanks. There are many dangerous (none / 0) (#43)
    by observed on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:41:48 AM EST
    drugs with some medical uses which we don't legalize, so the distinction isn't important.

    Not Important? (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    Tell that to the DEA so that they can do away with their classification system.

    And more to the point, disseminating misinformation, is never "not important".


    It is on occasion (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:33:50 AM EST
    While most people think of methamphetamine as an illegal street drug, it is also a prescription medication used to treat various medical conditions.
     Desoxyn® (methamphetamine hydrochloride) is the prescription version of methamphetamine. Desoxyn is approved for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is also approved for the short-term treatment of obesity.

    Oh, Really? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Qoheleth on Mon May 03, 2010 at 07:23:19 AM EST
    If legalizing marijuana leads to more use, then why are usage rates lower in nations where it is legal?

    Glen Greenwald had a good post a few weeks back talking about how successful a libertarian approach to grass is in Portugal.  I would make it required reading for all government officials.

    Just look at the tax revenue we're spending on a futile attempt at enforcement and how much we're missing out on by not taxing it.

    This is not to say, as Brother Dave Gardner said, "I think we ought to make everything legal.  Then we wouldn't have no crime."  

    Some things are too dangerous to be made legal without a license.  But marijuana isn't one of them.

    "Gateway drug"?  How many pot smokers go on to heavier drugs?  Not too &%^$ many.

    Actually heroin and cocaine were (none / 0) (#7)
    by observed on Mon May 03, 2010 at 07:50:13 AM EST
    legalized too. I read that "all" drugs were legalized, but I don't know what that means.

    Gateway drug (none / 0) (#28)
    by Raskolnikov on Mon May 03, 2010 at 03:10:56 PM EST
    Always seemed like a confusion of cause and effect to me.  Those predisposed to using marijuana overlap with those predisposed to using cocaine, heroin, etc., but from my experience smoking pot was generally not a slippery slope to hard drug addiction.  That said, being around people who smoke pot, and buying from people who sell it, you are exposed to cocaine, mushrooms, ecstasy and MDMA, and acid more than if you don't, because the same people sell a lot of those drugs.  

    Most friends and acquaintances of mine who smoked avoided meth, heroin and crack like the plague, drug education has worked decently well in that regard.  However, all these friends are from fairly affluent families, and decently well off themselves, but when I went to work in a factory it was the first I'd ever seen or heard anyone using meth, powder or rock cocaine.  Meth and crack are very strong, very cheap (comparatively) and very addictive, and have serious consequences, often leading to illegal activity to sustain the cash-flow necessary to imbibe, so personally I have a huge problem with legalizing either.  


    legalizing either (none / 0) (#39)
    by norma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:42:22 AM EST
    if they were legal there would be a price control on the product. Therefore no need to raise huge amounts of cash to continue using the product. However if prescription speed were available from your Dr. again like it used to be...nobody would want that crummy meth stuff that's on the street right now. A pure emphetamine would cause much less harm to the body.

    keeping things illegal (none / 0) (#8)
    by cpinva on Mon May 03, 2010 at 07:57:09 AM EST
    also (and i'm sure this is merely coincidence) helps buff up the budgets for the prison systems, judiciary and police.

    again, most likely a simple coincidence.

    great (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    thats just great

    I'm sorry, but on this issue.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:21:21 AM EST
    ....Obama is a phucking idiot without an ounce of logic on his side.  He deserves eggs tossed at him, bags of horse manure, all of it.  He has no excuse for acting like a reactionary prohibitionist, except his own ignorance and, once again, unrivaled cowardice intellectually and politically.

    He oughtta just keep his trap shut, he has nothing to say that is either informed or useful.

    Of course, he IS a nicotine addict (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Dadler on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    And would never suggest making his drug illegal.

    So he's a hypocrite on top of it.

    I repeat: Mr. Prez, keep your lame mouth shut on this issue, you have nothing to contribute but more idiocy.


    The office of President (none / 0) (#40)
    by norma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    I cannot imagine what it is that would make a man that knows the truth about marijuana stand behind this ONDCP logic? Whatever it is that he was told about the drug war must be really big for him to keep up the huge lie.I wondered the same thing when Bill Clinton was in office. I voted for him the second time because I thought,surely this time he will come out with some changes...he can't run again.But he didn't. So whatever it is that Obama has been told, is why he is where he is on this subject. Because there is no logical arugument for keeping marijuana illegal. it cannot kill, it has no know overdose level. The reason must be something so big that we can't even imagine. I would guess that black market profits are what is running the world and if there was legalization the world finacial system might collapse?

    Progressives AND Libertarians AND Conservatives... (none / 0) (#19)
    by feralrom on Mon May 03, 2010 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    If opinions were consistent with avowed political philosophies, Progressives AND Libertarians AND Conservatives SHOULD support legalized, regulated drugs, taxed to the brink of black market prices.

    People (mostly) prefer to be legal.  All other things being equal, they will buy taxed drugs in preference to black market drugs.  Once the black market has been starved (coincidentally offering the beleaguered Mexicans a chance to reclaim their state), sin taxes can be titered to minimize consumption.  Don't tax them so high as to reinvigorate the black market, but do tax them high enough that non-users will think twice about picking them up.

    The Progressives SHOULD like it.  The Libertarians prefer it unregulated, but still SHOULD prefer it as regulated rather then proscribed.  And the Conservatives SHOULD prefer to use their hotshot market forces to reduce consumption. But, like I said, that would be if opinions were consistent with avowed political philosophies.

    Nicotine is a proven carcinogen and extremely (none / 0) (#26)
    by glennmcgahee on Mon May 03, 2010 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    addictive in the drug delivery system thats been designed by the tobacco companies. Nictotine, as grown on a farm and harvested isn't as dangerous until its been manipulated by the samke companies. We know it, the government knows it, the FDA and all physicians know it. Our President is an addict, yet others are demonized and put in jail for a joint, something the President has also admitted using. I don't think that meth, cocaine, heroin (subsidised by the USA in Afganistan) are harmless. They should be illegal. But if nicotine and alcohol are legal, pot should be also. Its not because we can grow it ourselves. The President is a hypocrite.

    I used to be a... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    "just legalize reefer" guy, then I realized that I was being a flaming hypocrite because I happen to enjoy reefer while having no love for coke or horse.  A "don't tread on me, tread on them" type...and thats just selfish and lame.  

    It's really gotta be an all or nothing proposition...either you have the right to ingest as you see fit or ya don't...and I firmly believe you do.


    Has nicotine, of and by itself... (none / 0) (#41)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:59:38 AM EST
    really been "proven" to be a carcinogen?  Doesn't appear that is the case:  

    The carcinogenic properties of nicotine in standalone form, separate from tobacco smoke, have not been evaluated by the IARC, and it has not been assigned to an official carcinogen group. The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties.

    Didn't Obama USE cocaine? (none / 0) (#29)
    by mexboy on Mon May 03, 2010 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    So drugs are good for the president but bad for the citizens?

    The hypocrisy!

    I think he said it was (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:34:49 AM EST
    bad for him.

    So the US (none / 0) (#30)
    by Chuck0 on Mon May 03, 2010 at 03:50:04 PM EST
    keeps kicking in doors, killing its own citizens and shoring up the Mexican cartels. Change, what change?

    Stop the delusions (none / 0) (#32)
    by diogenes on Mon May 03, 2010 at 05:23:06 PM EST
    "Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them..."
    It may be good public policy for other reasons to legalize marijuana, but anyone who does not agree with the statement in quotes is either deluded or lying and weakens the case for legalization.

    Should we go back to alcohol prohibition? (none / 0) (#42)
    by norma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:05:46 AM EST
    Alcohol is a dangerous drug.If we made it illegal it would lessen use and willingness to use. Following your logic.
    But this is not about what is good for us...you have to get away from that thinking. We are not the governments children. We are sovern beings and if you want to follow the constitution...the goverment should not be "making" us do what is good for us.

    Legalization ( definition ) (none / 0) (#38)
    by norma on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:34:52 AM EST
    legalization just means that the goverment would be able to regulate the products. Regulation means that they could make sure the ingredients are pure and dosage exact. They could say when, where and who could buy these drugs.
    Think "alcohol" regulation. When we ended alcohol prohibition, it wasn't because alcohol was suddenly discovered to be a safe product. It was because the unregulated black market causing more harm than the alcohol.